[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

(meteorobs) On International Standards



Hi folks,

In a follow-up to Juergen's remarks, I would like to express my own
thoughts on the issue of creating international standards forvisual meteor
observers.

I very much agree that in order to properly conduct research utilizing
visual meteor data, a good degree of standardization has to have been
maintained during the data gathering process.  As a data collection
"instrument," human beings are frought with potential systematic errors and
bias, and if data from many persons is to be combined standard techniques
and procedures are essential.  If the data set is to extend on to the
global scale, then internationally maintained standards for data collection
techniques and recording are quite necessary.  Without such standards there
can be no real confidence in the ability to combined data from the various
sample sets, and any conclusions drawn will be questionable.

Below is an excerpt from the "Goals" section of AMS Bulletin 200, which is
a descriptive document for our organization:

"For a number of years, the AMS has supported beginning visual observers of
meteors by providing brief observing directions, charts, forms and other
materials upon receipt of an initial dues payment and we will continue to
do this. Many beginning observers can make accurate observations, but lack
the background to do the data reduction once the observations are made. The
AMS Ltd. will continue to support and train such observers with the goal of
making their data conform to accepted international standards. The AMS will
also continue to actively support and look for ways in which to modernize
our traditional Visual Program. All AMS observers will be encouraged to
achieve the highest skill level possible, and to look for new and better
ways of gathering accurate visual meteor data."

Please note that the goal mentioning international standards has been
present in the document since the 1993 revision.  Jim B and I have recently
updated this bulletin (viewable at our Web site), and felt this to still be
an important goal of the Visual Program.

In other words, my IMO colleagues, the AMS does not object to, and in fact
encourages the adoption of international standards by our experienced
meteor observers.  We do, however, have a serious problem with the manner
in which the IMO attempted to establish such standards.  

In my view, the IMO made the following mistakes:

**  The IMO failed to recognize the standards that the AMS already had in
place, simply declaring our work to be seriously inferior.

Several years prior to the formation of the IMO, the AMS had established
many of the same techniques which are still used today for collecting
visual meteor data.  Norman McLeod, our Visual Program Coordinator,  can
attest to this.  In my own experience, after being trained in the AMS
techniques by Mike Morrow, I found it to be a rather easy transition to
collect data for the IMO as well.  There were some minor differences in the
determination of limiting magnitude and the gauging of angular velocity,
but the rest of the IMO form was simply taken up by some data reduction
steps that the AMS does not ask its observers to perform.  However, the
basic data set from which such reduction occurs, is collected by both
organizations.

Many spectators looking at the AMS from the outside seem to makde the
incorrect assumption that our Meteor Count program is our primary thrust.
This is incorrect.  The meteor count program is a simplified program
specifically for our beginners and more casual observers.  It is
essentially a training program, from which we hope observers will move on
to collect full descriptive data on each meteor, and from thence on to
plotting.  I will agree that data collected in this program must be used
skeptically and perhaps only as an "order of magnitude" supplement to the
data gathered from more experienced observers, but this program is still
very important to us.  I think that many of us forget what it was like when
we did not know the constellations, couldn't tell one shower from another,
and had only seen a couple of "shooting stars" in our lifetime.  At that
stage, simply making hourly counts is enjoyable enough.  With a little time
and experience, this activity becomes boring, and at that point it is time
to move up to the next level.

**  The IMO insisted upon dictating its standards and analysis techniques
to the AMS without any attempt at open discussion or providing validation.

When commercial industries form industry wide standards, a joint committee
of some type is usually formed, and all participants are permitted input.
If a particular company has a superior technique, then they are obliged to
validate the methods before the others.  In our particular situation, the
IMo staff made no attempt at this, simply stating "our way,  or else."  

Another problem with which I have personal experience is the difficulty in
obtaining copies of the scientific papers showing the history and
development of the IMO techniques.  This is especially true of those works
generated in eastern Europe prior to 1990.  U.S. research libraries rarely
carried such works.  I have since obtainedenough of a stack as to make a
good introduction, but it is still rough going on this side of the ocean.
I find it rather unreasonable for for the IMo to have asked another
scientific organization to adopt its techniques, especially in the area of
shower analysis, without providing a scientific validation for those
techniques first.

**  The IMO insisted upon the AMS coming under the IMO as an affiliate.

Paul Roggemans was rather blunt in 1989 when he essentially demanded our
"surrender."  As i have stated before, this was an unacceptable demand.

Using my same metaphore, commercial industries generally find ways to adopt
industry wide standards without having to resort to merger or hostile
take-over.  A far better approach would have been to  work towards the
establishment of  a cooperative data exchange program in which the IMO and
AMS could have mutually benefitted.

In conclusion, I hope very much that we can learn from the mistakes of the
past, which have been made on both sides.  My primary purpose in providing
this dialogue is not to point out such mistakes, but to solve
misconceptions.  In doing soI hope that we can finally understand each
other well enough to move forward and away from such turbulence.

Take care, everyone,


Jim Richardson
AMS Radiometeor Project Coordinator
Graceville, Florida

richardson@digitalexp.com
http://www.serve.com/meteors/


References: